Who says those people at the temple dedications were not Lamanites? I believe the blood of Lehi flows in many, if not most, of the Amerindians living today. Indeed, Lehi is probably a direct ancestor of almost all of them. Just like you and I are direct descendants of Charlemagne.
Mind you, I'm not a scholar or anything. But who is Charlemagne? I'll have to take your word here. But a question I might pose is, if we all are likely descendants of this Charlemagne, would mDNA verify that?
If it does, then wouldn't that be another nail in the Book of Mormon coffin? If it doesn't, then do we use the same arguments to answer why not as we do on the Book of Mormon and it's mDNA issues?
Now we're getting somewhere!
Charlemagne was a king who lived around 400 A.D. He was also a prolific breeder, hence his prevalence in family trees that stretch back that far.
You ask, "... would mDNA verify that?"
And the answer ................... drumroll .................... NO, it would not! Why? Because DNA testing in general, and mitochondrial DNA testing in particular, does not look at anything except a small fraction of our inherited DNA. And even though I can trace my genealogy back to several kings of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and France, none of them are going to let me borrow the crown jewels for the weekend, nor would DNA testing necessarily show my relationship to Prince Harry.
And there is no reason to suppose that the DNA signature of a man named Lehi -- whatever his DNA may have looked like -- would be found in anyone living today, even though he may very literally be among the ancestors of every Amerindian currently living, just as Charlemagne is among my hundreds of thousands of ancestors.
This is a stunning display of inadvertent ignorance. Hundreds years off Charlemagne's reign, wildly overemphasizing the size of his progeny, and misspeaking about mDNA as it relates to establishing a genetic trail.
William Schryver wrote:There was almost no teaching from the Book of Mormon for the first century of Mormonism. Search through the conference reports and publications of the 19th century, and you will hardly find a single citation from the Book of Mormon. Why? I’m not sure. Part of it is that they had a bias towards teaching from the Bible that they brought from their former religious affiliations. The bottom line is that they didn’t teach from the Book of Mormon, for the most part they didn’t read it, and they didn’t talk much about its contents.
For the early leaders, there wasn't even a debate surrounding the question of the origin of the native americans. Joseph Smith had spoken, and the thinking had been done. Joseph Smith said the americas were populated by the Book of Mormon peoples. Case closed.
Fast forward a number of decades - science starts to figure out where the native americans actually came from. You get the rest of the story...
Some experts in population genetics would argue that his {lehi's} descendants are probably on every continent by now.
lol. why don't you name some of them? Try and name 1 who's not LDS.
Uh, duh! It wouldn't take an LDS expert in population genetics to support my argument. Any such expert would tell you that any man who had produced three or four generations of offspring 2500 years ago would now be the ancestor of almost every living human being.
I've watched you grow dumber over the course of the past two years.
I hope, at least, that you're happier now. What with your wife wearing her tanktop and panties to bed and everything.
My wife just wears the tanktop -- at least for 45 minutes or so. She likes to sleep in her soft flannel jammies.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
Who says those people at the temple dedications were not Lamanites? I believe the blood of Lehi flows in many, if not most, of the Amerindians living today. Indeed, Lehi is probably a direct ancestor of almost all of them. Just like you and I are direct descendants of Charlemagne.
Mind you, I'm not a scholar or anything. But who is Charlemagne? I'll have to take your word here. But a question I might pose is, if we all are likely descendants of this Charlemagne, would mDNA verify that?
If it does, then wouldn't that be another nail in the Book of Mormon coffin? If it doesn't, then do we use the same arguments to answer why not as we do on the Book of Mormon and it's mDNA issues?
Now we're getting somewhere!
Charlemagne was a king who lived around 400 A.D. He was also a prolific breeder, hence his prevalence in family trees that stretch back that far.
You ask, "... would mDNA verify that?"
And the answer ................... drumroll .................... NO, it would not! Why? Because DNA testing in general, and mitochondrial DNA testing in particular, does not look at anything except a small fraction of our inherited DNA. And even though I can trace my genealogy back to several kings of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and France, none of them are going to let me borrow the crown jewels for the weekend, nor would DNA testing necessarily show my relationship to Prince Harry.
And there is no reason to suppose that the DNA signature of a man named Lehi -- whatever his DNA may have looked like -- would be found in anyone living today, even though he may very literally be among the ancestors of every Amerindian currently living, just as Charlemagne is among my hundreds of thousands of ancestors.
This is a stunning display of inadvertent ignorance. Hundreds years off Charlemagne's reign, wildly overemphasizing the size of his progeny, and misspeaking about mDNA as it relates to establishing a genetic trail.
Other than typing 400 instead of 700, you're wrong. I probably should have just said "in the 8th century" and avoided the problem. At any rate, Charles bred many women over his life, producing a considerable progeny. And he is, in fact, the ancestor of almost every living person in Europe and the U.S. today, despite the fact that analysis of our mtDNA would not show it. You, quite frankly, do not know what you're talking about.
Last edited by The Stig on Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
Who says those people at the temple dedications were not Lamanites? I believe the blood of Lehi flows in many, if not most, of the Amerindians living today. Indeed, Lehi is probably a direct ancestor of almost all of them. Just like you and I are direct descendants of Charlemagne.
Mind you, I'm not a scholar or anything. But who is Charlemagne? I'll have to take your word here. But a question I might pose is, if we all are likely descendants of this Charlemagne, would mDNA verify that?
If it does, then wouldn't that be another nail in the Book of Mormon coffin? If it doesn't, then do we use the same arguments to answer why not as we do on the Book of Mormon and it's mDNA issues?
Now we're getting somewhere!
Charlemagne was a king who lived around 400 A.D. He was also a prolific breeder, hence his prevalence in family trees that stretch back that far.
You ask, "... would mDNA verify that?"
And the answer ................... drumroll .................... NO, it would not! Why? Because DNA testing in general, and mitochondrial DNA testing in particular, does not look at anything except a small fraction of our inherited DNA. And even though I can trace my genealogy back to several kings of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and France, none of them are going to let me borrow the crown jewels for the weekend, nor would DNA testing necessarily show my relationship to Prince Harry.
And there is no reason to suppose that the DNA signature of a man named Lehi -- whatever his DNA may have looked like -- would be found in anyone living today, even though he may very literally be among the ancestors of every Amerindian currently living, just as Charlemagne is among my hundreds of thousands of ancestors.
This is a stunning display of inadvertent ignorance. Hundreds years off Charlemagne's reign, wildly overemphasizing the size of his progeny, and misspeaking about mDNA as it relates to establishing a genetic trail.
Other than typing 400 instead of 700, you're wrong. Charles bred many women over his life, producing a considerable progeny. And he is, in fact, the ancestor of almost every living person in Europe and the U.S. today, despite the fact that analysis of our mtDNA would not show it. You, quite frankly, do not know what you're talking about.
I'm just quoting this to memorialize your statement. I'm actually shaking my head right now.
No one is saying that if a group of 30 lehites mixed with millions of native americans, the lehite DNA should be detectable.
True, there were probably less than 30.
What are you trying to say?
That the Lehite family quickly mingled genetically with pre-existing inhabitants and the Mulekites (a mutt breed themselves) and that genetically their descendants would be indistinguishable from earlier migrant groups.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
No one is saying that if a group of 30 lehites mixed with millions of native americans, the lehite DNA should be detectable.
True, there were probably less than 30.
What are you trying to say?
That the Lehite family quickly mingled genetically with pre-existing inhabitants and the Mulekites (a mutt breed themselves) and that genetically their descendants would be indistinguishable from earlier migrant groups.
I'm just quoting this to memorialize your statement. I'm actually shaking my head right now.
Don't shake too hard. You'll break something.
I'm sure you're just at a loss for something intelligent to say. I've noticed that's been a recurring problem for you over the years.
But you give it some thought, and when you think you've come up with something good, we'll be here waiting . . .
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
Will wrote:I've watched you grow dumber over the course of the past two years.
I hope, at least, that you're happier now. What with your wife wearing her tanktop and panties to bed and everything.
My wife just wears the tanktop -- at least for 45 minutes or so. She likes to sleep in her soft flannel jammies.
And this has to do with WK's argument, how?
Quit being such an ass.
Go away, Lizzie. This conversation is over your pretty little head. You want to moderate my comments, go right ahead. Put some bite in your bitchiness.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...